If America can take money from the rich and spread it around to the poor, then this would be good. I understand the concerns of the other side, and agree that too much money given would be bad. However, if we give a little money, say 200 dollars per month, this would be very beneficial to American people in poverty.
Research shows that just giving people a few hundreds or thousands of dollars can lift them out of poverty more effectively than welfare. Furthermore, giving everyone a basic poverty-level annual income could shift the whole dynamics of economics towards greater quality of life and sustainability. It is high time for more of us to seriously consider this approach, which has had support from across the political spectrum, from Nixon to Martin Luther King, Jr.; from neoliberal economists to Green Parties…
If the government were to give free money then the citizens would develop a dependence on the government and not work at all thus giving the government no where to get money from and all of our goods would have to be imported. This system would also put the country that supports it in a state of communism which basically just turns into a dictatorship in the end.
Where do you think this "free money" would come from? From the government, I would assume. And where do they get it? Governments have two ways of raising money. They can tax people or they can print it. Let's examine what happens in both situations.
They tax people who have money and redistribute it to the poor. Well, that's all well and good, except that removes any incentive to work. The wealthy don't care to work anymore because the fruits of their labor are being squandered on the lazy, and the poor don't work because they don't need to as long as free money keeps coming in. That's not to say that some social welfare is entirely misguided or that charity is wrong. No, it's just to say that a large-scale program offering people "free" money every month would likely cripple the economy.
Or they can print it and redistribute it. That might work okay for a very short time, but very quickly what happens as that new money enters circulation is that people find there is more money available. This devalues every dollar in the marketplace currently, driving inflation up. Some limited inflation is not economically devastating (in fact, some inflation can be beneficial), but large sums of "free money" entering circulation would devalue currency to a devastating degree.
By all means, let's find a way to help the poor. But let's not do so at the expense of economic stability.
This question is incredibly socialist and very unsustainable.
Some people ALREADY get free money from the government every month- or so- (welfare), and what do most of those people do with it? They blow it all away on drugs, alcohol, or anything else unproductive and wait for the next check so they can do it again!
Guaranteeing a basic income every month for all citizens is very expensive-especially when 315 million people are getting that money- and does little to benefit the economy (not allot of them will invest with it or do anything productive). I mean... Why work, or produce when your paycheck comes no matter what you do?!?
This idea ignores one of the fundamental principles of human nature: that many of us have to be motivated by an award in order to peruse a goal, and any idea that ignores ANY fundamental principle(s) of human nature is bound to go south when applied to the human race.
Why do we need to spend so much money? Most of the people use their money on drugs and what-not unecessary items that are irellevant to the survival needs of a human. Likewise, 1 ounce/28g of Marijuana is about $100+. What a waste of money.. Save 10 ounces and you can already go travelling with a loved one, instead of getting high at your dirty own house. Or even just buy some food and pay for rent? Smh
We need to learn to have the ability to earn. If we are given free money there is no way we will learn to be self sufficient. If we get free money then we learn to expect free money all the time. Some people may need free money to then begin making money, but free money will just encourage those to rely on it and not earn any for themselves.
All money is, is a representation of goods. If you have X amount of dollars now, that is the same as having Y amount of chickens or Z amount of cows 10,000 years ago. Goods do not pop out of thin air and neither should money. If you can grow a cow, gut it, and cook it, then you can sell it for money. Giving out free money would destroy the purpose of even having money. Something is only valuable as long as there is not tons of it, so that it is necessary. Look back at FDR's (the biggest democrat in history) "New Deal" AAA policy. The AAA paid farmers to not plant crops on all of their land, thus lowering the overall amount of food. This raised the prices of food, allowed farmers to make/earn (not be given) enough money to get by. This is an example of more not being better, and one given by the most successful liberal in American history.
1. Money given introduces laziness, because whether you want to or not, your brain will see that you don't have to work to get money.
2. Who would pay, and how?
3. It sounds like a downward spiral in economical terms.
Giving money away is okay, but to much will throw the system off. Should the uber-rich kick in some serious cash? Yes. But it must be dealt with carefully.
Everyone wants a lot of money so they can buy whatever they want and do whatever they want, but I agree that money should be earned. If we were to get free money, where would it come from? For example, America is in great debt. We owe trillions of dollars to China, and that debt is continuing to rise. Where would the government get the money to freely hand out. I like money, but this is a bad idea.